P.S. Docket No. MD 97-144


June 10, 1997 


In the Matter of a Mail Dispute )
Between )
  )
VERDIA WILLIAMS )
  )
            and )
  )
HOWARD ROGERS )  P.S. Docket No. MD 97-144
   
APPEARANCE FOR MS. WILLIAMS: Verdia Williams
  Route 1, P.O. Box 225
  Cheraw, SC 29520
   
APPEARANCE FOR MR. ROGERS: Howard Rogers
  94 Campbell Road
  Cheraw, SC 29520-3202

INITIAL DECISION

This mail dispute has been docketed pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM7, August 1, 1996) Section 616.21, which requires the Chief Field Counsel to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for resolution. The mail in dispute, which is addressed to Mr. Ellis Rogers, Jr. at 10 Foundry Hill Road, Cheraw, SC 29520, is currently being held by the Cheraw, South Carolina Postmaster.

Although neither party submitted a sworn statement, as required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5, both submitted letters, and attached documents, in support of their claims. The following findings of fact are based on all the materials submitted by the parties, including that forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, Atlanta Division.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On September 12, 1996, Ellis Rogers, Jr. executed a full power of attorney designating his daughter, Verdia Rogers (now Verdia Williams) as his attorney-in-fact. This document was witnessed and notarized.

2. On February 18, 1997, Ellis Rogers, Jr. signed a typewritten note, stating that he was a patient at the Williams Jennings Bryan Dorn Veterans Hospital in Columbia, South Carolina, and that he authorized his brother, Howard Rogers, to pick up his mail from the Cheraw, South Carolina Post Office.

3. On March 6, 1997, Ellis Rogers, Jr. signed a letter to his daughter, Mrs. Williams, stating that "I desire for Howard Rogers to receive my mail and take care of my financial matters." The letter, which was notarized, also stated that the power of attorney given to Mrs. Williams was no longer valid.

4. On March 13, 1997, Ellis Rogers, Jr. signed a statement revoking the power of attorney that he had executed on September 12, 1996. This document was witnessed and notarized.

5. On April 10, 1997, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a letter to Ellis Rogers, Jr., stating that they had reconsidered their proposal to declare Mr. Rogers incompetent, and had determined that he was capable of managing his own affairs.

6. On April 15, 1997, Ellis Rogers, Jr. signed a statement "In Support of Howard Rogers," which was witnessed and notarized, saying that he disapproved of certain actions taken by his daughter, and that these were the reasons he had revoked the power of attorney.

7. The forwarding letter from the Atlanta Law Department notes that Howard Rogers was previously employed at the Cheraw Post Office, but that his employment had been terminated because he had improperly removed his brother's mail from the mailstream. The letter does not state when that occurred.

DECISION

Howard Rogers bases his claim on the documents signed by Ellis Rogers, Jr. that are described in findings of fact 2, 3, 4 and 6. Mrs. Williams bases her claim on the power of attorney, and argues that her father was not mentally competent to sign such statements, or that he was now lying about certain matters, or that some of the signatures are forgeries.

The evidence of record is much more supportive of Howard Rogers' position. The notary stamps on the various documents appear to be genuine, and there is no sound basis for rejecting them. Likewise, the Department of Veterans Affairs letter (finding of fact #5) appears to be authentic, and refutes the argument that Ellis Rogers, Jr. is not mentally competent. The reference to Howard Rogers being fired from the Postal Service for interfering with mail is troublesome, but it does not negate Ellis Rogers' demonstrated intent to have Howard Rogers take possession of his mail.

This decision deals only with delivery of the mail. It does not determine ownership of the contents of the mail. If either party should obtain a court order directing delivery of the mail, postal regulations provide that mail will be delivered in accordance with such an order. Furthermore, as the record indicates that Ellis Rogers, Jr. has not been declared incompetent, he retains the right to direct delivery of his own mail.

As between the two disputants, the attached delivery order should be issued.


Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge